Alien Torts Claims Act: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (New page: Originally adopted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the '''Alien Tort Claims Act''' first did not address specific rights, but has subsequently become prominent from the latter part o...) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Originally adopted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the '''Alien Tort Claims Act''' first did not address specific rights, but has subsequently become prominent from the latter part of the 20th century, in various international [[human rights]] cases. The original language said for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." <ref>28 USC 1350</ref> It became prominent with the 1984 [[Filartiga v. Pena-Irala]] case, in which the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] found in favor of Argentinians, [[torture|tortured]] in Argentina, under the authority of an Argentinean officer who had moved to the U.S. | |||
Originally adopted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the '''Alien Tort Claims Act''' first did not address specific rights, but has subsequently become prominent from the latter part of the 20th century, in various international [[human rights]] cases. The original language said the U.S. district courts had jurisdiction "for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." <ref>28 USC 1350</ref> It became prominent with the 1984 [[Filartiga v. Pena-Irala]] case, in which the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] found in favor of Argentinians, [[torture|tortured]] in Argentina, under the authority of an Argentinean officer who had moved to the U.S. | |||
Later cases included: | Later cases included: | ||
Revision as of 10:48, 29 March 2009
Originally adopted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Alien Tort Claims Act first did not address specific rights, but has subsequently become prominent from the latter part of the 20th century, in various international human rights cases. The original language said the U.S. district courts had jurisdiction "for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." [1] It became prominent with the 1984 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala case, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found in favor of Argentinians, tortured in Argentina, under the authority of an Argentinean officer who had moved to the U.S.
Later cases included:
- Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic[2], a 1984 case involving Libyan sponsorship of an attack on a civilian bus in Israel (alleging claims against Libya based on armed attack upon civilian bus in Israel);
- Forti v. Suarez Mason, a 1987 case involving Argentina,
- Abebe-Jira v. Negewo[3] involving Ethiopiam prisoners in 1996,
- In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos[4] about events in the Phillipines,
- Kadic v. Karadzic[5] decide in 1995 about abuses in Serbia
It is the basis of the current Mohamed et al. v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. case involving U.S. , U.S., George W. Bush Administration|extraordinary rendition and extrajudicial detention.